Sanctifying Grace

In the previous I defended the existence of prevenient grace and also within the entry I made reference also to justifying and sanctifying grace as well. Surely the audience that reads these posts would fall mostly in the reformed, fundamentalist category, as do I. Moreover, most readers take issue with the Methodist church and moreover Wesleyan doctrines of grace. Wesley spoke of three types of grace, prevenient (prior to conversion), justifying (saving), and sactifying (post conversion). Methodism recognizes these three types of grace and I would argue that we (reformed/fundementalists) ought not to reject the existence of these types of grace simply because of our distast for works based theology. I will not go over what the last post said about prevenient grace, and I am going to skip justifying grace (saving grace) because we all agree on it, instead I will focus this entry on sanctifying grace.
Sanctifying grace is real, and it is very much different than prevenient grace and justifying grace. We have no biblical reason of which I am aware to reject the notion that God continues to dispense grace upon us out of His own pleasure after we are converted for the purpose of sanctifying us. If we reject the notion of sanctifying grace then we ourselves are guilty of works based religon, because our sanctification would not be the result of grace (a work of God) but a result of personal obedience wrought by our own will power. Moreover a rejection of santifying grace is a rejection of the presence of the Spirit in a believer's life. The very prescence of God by His Spirit in the believers life is clearly evidence of grace and its purpose is the sanctification of the believer.
I will leave this topic at that. There is no need for us to reject the notion of prevenient, justifying, or sanctifying grace just for the sake of rejecting it. It is more productive for us to embrace these forms a grace and use them to explain the perfect soveriegnty of the Lord to methodists.

Please comment if something needs added, or taken away.

Prevenient Grace

I find that most fundamentalist and reformed Christians seem to absolutely abhor the 'Arminian' or 'Wesleyan' doctrine of prevenient grace. I am still trying to figure out why. True, the conclusion which arminians draw from that doctrine is false, however the existance of prevenient grace cannot be denied. We clearly are by grace presented with the Gospel at various times in life, however until the Lord brings us to acceptance we reject that presentation. Still when the gospel is presented grace is most certainly present. Many people have experienced that grace and are in the pit right now because of their rejection of the grace that was then offered them. What was that grace? Certainly it was not saving or as they say 'justifying' grace. It did not save or justify anyone. Clearly it was not as the Weslyean would say 'sanctifying' grace because it sanctified no one. None the less it is by grace that a sinner hears the gospel whether he receives it or not. Therefore this grace that is experienced prior to conversion is rightly called prevenient grace. Let's qualify this entry before it gets misconstrued. One by no means can or will be converted by prevenient grace, it is not our reaction to prevenient grace that saves us but the action of Christ alone that opens our eyes to this grace and thus what was prevenient grace becomes justifying grace. It is absolutly proud and puffed up to think that some how we meet Christ in the middle and he saves us. However it is a denial of the actions of God to say that there is no grace depensed to us prior to salvation. It was grace that kept me alive long enough to be saved, that grace was prevenient. In the next post I will defend the doctrine of sanctifying grace because that too is a proper and just doctrine (also misconstrued). Before I close I want to again make it clear that I do not embrace the thought that by our own action in coming to Christ we are saved, it is only by His action that he brings us to acceptance of Him, there is no mutual work it is all His work for the Father's Glory. Feel free to question or comment, or steer me staight if I am off topic.

so much is just show

I had an interesting conversation with a friend last night and it really got me thinking about various things. The conversation was about the war in iraq, my friend is very much against the war and against president bush, i don't plan on giving an oppinion here either way. The conversation turned to those little magnets that everyone sticks on there cars, you know the yellow ribbons that say "I support our troops." My question is how? I would say this, i don't support the troops. I support them in prayer, but as far as taking action by donations, or greeting them when they get home, or sending letters, or anything of that nature I have done nothing. For me to say I support the troops is simply a lie. it is my guess that about 90 or more percent of the people who have magnetic ribbons don't support the troops either. I would go even further and say that the people who are against the war (the normal people not the protestors) have a tendency to be doing more to support the troops than the rest of us. Now we as christians know that the real battle is a spirtual one, and so many people wear their badges, be it their fish on the car or their cross, or their profession of faith, or their weekly worship attendence, we all stand up and say we support the cause of christ. We support the spread of the gospel, we support righteousness, we support morality, but too often we are just posers. it is easier to just say i support the troops, or i am a faithful christian, but we are totally lost and unregenerate if we are still willing to reside on the sidelines and take no action. If christ has wrought in us salvation, how then can we go on watching? when are we as a "christian nation" going to get at it, to get real? The truth is we are not a christian nation, and christianity as a whole in this nation is lukewarm, and lacks the passion and zeal that once characterized america a couple centuries ago. if i were to say i am not a part of the problem i would be a liar. i think i certainly do not follow christ with the energy which should characterize all who are called according to him. i will say this i am not going to post a ribbon to my chest and act as if i am this bold soldier of the gospel, oh i am a soldier of the lord, but too often i just lean on my gun. that is all for tonight sorry if it was rantish or whiney.

so great a salvation

Recently I listened to a message by Paris Reidhead entitled "So Great a Salvation." It was possibly the best of all the sermons I have listened to on the sermonaudio site.

Too often we as Christians, and a fundamentalists, will look at salvation only as it pertains to deliverance from hell. We talk about when we got saved, and about getting people saved. It is a noble cause, and it is clear that the Lord certainly does want us to preach the gospel that souls may be saved, but salvation from hell is only a part of salvation as a whole. Jesus came to deliever us from our sinful nature that we may exhibit His righteousness here on earth. He died on the cross to conquer sin, not only to attone for it. Clearly we have a sinful nature, and we find ourselves all too often in sin, but on the cross Christ overcame that so that we would not live in bondage to sin right now. If we were purchased by His blood then we are His slaves today. We are to be slaves of righteousness now! There is so much more to Christ's work on the cross then we often attribute to it. Often times I think that we as fundamentalist will focus on God's hell, and preaching about God's hell, and warning people of hell, that we forget about the victory that Christ won for us here on earth. We need to warn of hell, no doubt, but I would go as far to say that we find comfort in preaching only salvation from hell, because we know we have received that. We are much slower to preach salvation from sin here on earth and deliverance from evil hear on earth, power over temptation here on earth, and displaying the righteousness of Christ here on earth. We are slow to preach these things because we know that we don't exhibit these aspects of salvation as we should. Oh it is an easy thing to preach brimstone, and it is an easy thing to know that Christ died to save you from hell, but too many Christians will be entering heaven by the skin of their teeth because they disregarded the salvation from sin here on earth.

I hope that all made sense I will be back again soon.

Righteousness is the glorfication of God

Deuteronomy 32:50-52
50 There on the mountain that you have climbed you will die and be gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people. 51 This is because both of you broke faith with me in the presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the Desert of Zin and because you did not uphold my holiness among the Israelites. 52 Therefore, you will see the land only from a distance; you will not enter the land I am giving to the people of Israel."

Moses was denied access to Isreal's promised land, because he followed the command of God, but did not glorify God. When Israel was thirsty and whining that they had nothing to drink, Moses pleaded with the Lord. The Lord told Moses to strike a rock and water would come out. Moses struck the rock, water came out, and that was it. It was this series of events that denied Moses the access to the promised land. After striking the rock Moses in no way glorified the Lord, and I no way did he bless God for providing the flowing water. Though Moses was obedient, God was not ready to honor this work.

Let's contrast this series of events with that of Rahab the harlot, which happened just four chapters later in the bible. Rahab lied when questioned about the two spies who came to spy out the city. She gave them refuge. She was rewarded by the Lord for deception.

Does it seem right that Moses would be punished for and event in which he was obedient to the command, and that Rahab would be rewarded for her deception? Moreover, can these two events both be true and God still be just? These two events are real, and God certianly is just, but how? God desires to be glorified by men. His righteous law and the results of obedience to those laws should bring him glory. However we can obey His laws and glorify ourselves, or glorify no one. In this case we would be more pleasing to God to glorify Him in our disobedience. This is by no means a liscense to transgress God's law, as Paul would say, God forbid. However this is to say that in all things we must glorify God, or else in is meaningless and even punishable.

So what is the application of this. First and foremost we cannot be legalistic. Remember Moses was punished in obedience, and Rahab was rewarded in deception. We must recognize when someone or something is glorifying God, and view it in that light. If a certain action does glorify God though it doesn't fit within the scope of what we see as obedience we must then set aside our views and rejoice that God is glorified. However we must also see when obedience is not glorifying God, take for instance the rich young ruler, his obedience would not be rewarded though he had kept all the commandments from his childhood. The obedience that does not give glory to God is worthless. The roman catholic that does acts of obedience such as feeding the poor, helping the sick and so on will receive only punishment if the attribute any of that obedience to a saint, or Mary or anyone other than the Lord himself. This is not just a dig on Catholicism by any means, to often we glorify our programs, and our pastors, and our authors and everyone else but the Lord. It is only when the Lord is glorified that an action is truely righteous.

Well I hope I was on track with this post. If you have any insights, questions, comments or corrections please leave a comment or send and e-mail. I am sure there are typos, there always are, just fight through them.

Hiding in the shadows of knowledge

Our knowledge can never, and will never overshawdow our sin. To often we view Christian life as a mental ascension to a few essential truths. This is such an incomplete view of the life we are called to. I know this entry will seem really basic and kind of no-brainer but maybe it is something you and I need to stop and think about.

First of all Christian life does certainly involve some sort of mental ascension. The Lord takes your fallen mind, and your wicked way of thinking and turns it towards Him and his truth. It is His working in your heart and mind that cause this "mental ascension." On the flip side we often will take the knowledge we have obtained concerning Christ and His gospel and become puffed up in our own estimate, and actually hide behind the knowledge as if it is the knowledge itself that saves us. The knowledge of the Lord doesn't save us by any means, it is only His blood on the cross that will save us. If I sat at a train station and said "I know that train is going to Georgia" that knowledge unapplied will by no menas get me to Georgia. I could even go further as to have a knowledge of the entire rail system, and I could know everything about the locomotive, I could be devoted to watching it, and washing it and waving at it and calling it good, yet if I am not on the train no matter how much I know, I go nowhere.

To often we pursue new knowledge without ever putting an application to the knowledge we already have. Even worse is that we often in our hearts will devote all of our energy to the pursuit of scriptural knowledge so as too avoid the application of what we already know. I hear people write on the web about the hypostatic union of something or other, I confess I don't what they are talking about, but too many times these same people who have a vast abyss of knowledge haven't even taken time to talk to their neighbor. We will hide behind intellect or the quest for Godly knowledge as an excuse not to apply what we already know. For instance I have been in a park reading my bible and heard many people walk by, I do not even look up and say hi, let alone share with them what I have read. I hide in that bible so as to avoid obedience to the things I already know. I am not by any means against studying the scriptures to know them to the very core, it is a noble task that we all should engage in. My point is simply that knowledge unapplied is really no knowledge at all.

Lets come out from the shadows of the things we are seeking to understand, and lets not seek any deeper truth until we have applied the truth we already know.

Thats all for tonight

Stuck in the "Slough of despond..."

Despondent -- Feeling or showing extreme discouragement, dejection, or depression.

Slough -- A place of deep mud or mire.

If you have recently read John Buyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" you will surely remember the main character's encounter with the slough of despond. This was one of his first difficulties he experienced after setting out on his pilgramage. John Bunyan must have authored this from his own experience and I am sure each of us on our own pilgramages have at least at one time encountered the slough of despond. My question is why?

The apostle Paul encourages us with his espitle to the Phillipians to be joyful in all circumstances and he cleary had every right to command that to us. He being locked in prison was still able to avoid despondency and find joy in Christ. I wish we could just avoid that terrible slough but I find to often we find ourselves neck deep in the mud and mire and in danger of drowning in doubt and despair before we will even recognize that anything is wrong.

What is it that can keep us from wallowing in the mud of despondency? Is it not God's grace that destroys despondence and brings us complete contentment. God has freely given us grace according to His own purpose, and the fact that he has given us that grace leaves us with no rational reason to be despondent. Do you, despondent one, remember that grace which God has showered upon you? Can you see those pierced hands that prove the love of God toward you?

Too often the mud of that wicked slough has covered mine own eyes and I cannot see those nail pierced hands, and I cannot even be sure that they exist and at that point I am so near drowning that I fear there is no salvation from what surely awaits. However, when the Lord empowers that lsst breath to somehow form the cry "Abba, Father." At that moment the strong hand of the Lord plucks me out of the slough and rains His cleansing grace upon me to was the muck that covered my soul. The blood of the lamb purges me of the faithless filth the drove me into that slough and I rejoice. With vision restored and soul cleansed I am free again to serve the living God.

I need to go, but I will you this, call out to God to shower His grace, which we desprately need, upon us daily. This way we can will always see clearly enough to avoid the slough of despond. If the mud even starts to build on your eyes was no time walking further until your vision has been cleared.

That is all for today. Please comment if you have any thoughts.

What's the issue with fundamentalism

Most users of sermonaudio likely consider themselves fundamentalists, and it is a badge people seem to wear with pride. I too, wear the "fundamentalist" title but must admit I see some serious problems with Christian fundamentalism as it is exercised today. I will just outline 3 problems that plague most fundamental churches today.

1. The cheapening of Grace -- While in my estimate Deitrich Boenhoffer was off base on various theological issues there was one point that he hit dead on, that being the modern church has perverted what is free grace into being cheap grace. Too often fundamentalist churches reduce salvation to a sinners prayer, a pat on the back, and boom welcome to heaven. I don't doubt that this method is effective, certianly many Christians have said a prayer like that and I don't doubt they were saved at that point. However I also do not doubt that there are many people who have said that prayer and call themselves Christians that know nothing of the Lord, and have by no means been indwelt by His spirit. To often we who are reformed in our thinking and abhor the thought of trying to earn your way to heaven will go to the opposite extreme and speak of salvation like it is mearly a flame retardent suit that we put on when we say a certain prayer. Works are the evidence of saving faith and we can and must expect works out of Christians, else the evidence shows they are no Christian at all. Certainly we fundamentalists are dead on when we say that we are saved not by works but by grace and that no work is going to earn grace, but grace that yeilds no fruit is cheap, and is not grace at all.

2. Legalism -- Typically anyone who is not a fundamentalist, will make the claim that fundamental Christianity is legalistic. While ture fundamental Christianity is by no means legalistic the typical fundamentalism we see in today's "conservative" church is highly legalistic. In an effort to get rid of sacramentalism we have created our own legalism. We will reject everything which doesn't fit within our scope of Christianity and deem it heretical. For instance we take a 18 year old who is attempting to witness by writing music and turn around and tell them that the music they write comes straight from the pit of hell. C.H. Spurgeon (often the fundamentalist hero) said that he loves imprudence in a young believer. He loves when they will try anything to worship. (See sermon "Church Increase" I think) Yet the legalistic fundamentalism has successfully quenched many young peoples drive to serve God in a way that is real to them. The legalistic fundamentalist has no memory of the Lord's work in them. They forget who they were when they were young Christians attempting to worship the Lord.

3. Backlash -- I am not sure what else to call it. To often we fundamentalists will overcompensate when correcting errors in doctrine. For instance in rejection of the Catholic church's hyperveneration of Mary, fundamentalists often downplay the magnitude of her obedience, and her role in the life of Christ. In refuting Arminianism many fundamentalists will downplay the role of a John Wesley or George Whitfield and their role in the spiritual renewal in England.

Maybe it is time for us who claim to be fundimental to take a good hard look at ourselves, our sucesses in Christ, and our failures. It is long past time for many fundementalists to be zealous for Christ as opposed to fundamentalism as they know it.

Thats all for now.